Symptom Data Challenge

“Can you develop a novel analytic approach that uses the CMU/UMD COVID-19 Symptom Survey data to enable earlier detection and improved situational awareness of the outbreak by public health authorities and the general public? …

Semi-finalists and finalists are eligible for cash prizes, and finalists will join discussions with partners on how to improve and deploy their submissions….”

ROIS-DS Center for Open Data in the Humanities (CODH)

“Center for Open Data in the Humanities / CODH, Joint Support-Center for Data Science Research, Research Organization of Information and Systems has the following missions toward the promotion of data-driven research and formation of the collaborative center in humanities research.

1. We establish a new discipline of data science-driven humanities, or digital humanities, and establish the center of excellence across organizations through the promotion of openness.
2. We develop “deep access” to the content of humanities data by state-of-the-art technologies in the area of informatics and statistics.
3. We aggregate, process and deliver humanities knowledge from Japan to the world through collaboration across organizations and countries.
4. We promote citizen science and open innovation based on open data and applications….”

OpenlabEC

From Google’s English:  “We are a citizen laboratory in Ecuador, which seeks to generate dialogues and experiences related to digital culture, citizen participation and open knowledge. We define ourselves as activists for the free software movement, popular and critical education, citizen science, privacy, open innovation, the development of computational thinking and the horizontal exchange of knowledge.

We do everything, debates, courses, hackathons, labs, social projects, mentoring, art exhibitions, mapping, conferences, all from an open and collaborative perspective. We want to support the free and digital culture communities of the country, necessary to promote the economy of knowledge and creativity that society needs.

We advise the production of virtual events and innovation processes with academic institutions, the media, NGOs and civil society.

We are a non-profit organization that seeks to generate redistribution and self-management of its processes. We collaborate with different organizations in the country and Latin America related to our same principles.”

African Makers Against COVID-19: Exploring Open Source Responses to a Global Crisis | Zenodo

“The COVID-19 pandemic has become one of the most pressing global health, security, economic and political issues of 2020, and responding to this novel challenge has put significant financial, technical and logistical constraints on governments and their partners. A number of responses are being developed by grassroots makers to enable personal protection, sanitation, and medical services, using Do-It-Yourself (DIY) and Do-It-Together (DIT) approaches – demonstrating an open, rapid and bottom-up response to the crisis. Initiated by Africa Open Science & Hardware, the Berlin University of the Arts (Weizenbaum Institute), the Technische Universität Berlin (Einstein Center Digital Future), and in dialogue with the GIZ Togo and GIZ Ghana, the inaugural ‘African Makers Against COVID-19’ digital roundtable on 29 May 2020 brought together makers responding to the pandemic across the African continent to discuss approaches, opportunities and challenges. By identifying and connecting makers, researchers and development professionals, we sought to highlight:

1. the processes and mechanisms underlying making in response to COVID-19

2. how devices and technologies are implemented at health facilities and in communities

3. opportunities and challenges influencing further development and scale-up of innovations

4. interventions that could enable sustainability of grassroots African initiatives against COVID-19…”

 

Webinar Video: Citizen Science At Universities: Trends, Guidelines and Recommendations – LIBER

“A number of European recommendations – including the LERU’s advice paper “Citizen Science at Universities: Trends, Guidelines and Recommendations” – highlight the importance of creating a single point of contact for citizen science within the institution.”

Open Science Policy Platform: final report

The Open Science Policy Platform (OSPP, also EUOSPP) presented in April 2020 its final report “Progress on Open Science: Towards a Shared Research Knowledge System”.

What was the role of the OSPP?

The OSPP consisted of 25 representatives of the most important relevant European open science stakeholders (except business and industry community). This high-level advisory group was set up in 2016 by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Its role was to advise the European Commission on how to develop its Open Science Policy. It also supported policy implementation by reviewing best practices, drawing policy guidelines, and encouraging their active uptake by stakeholders. In particular, the OSPP was in charge of working with other high-level expert groups on very specific topics and bringing the stakeholder’s perspective into their recommendations.

According to Europe Direct, there will be no third mandate for the OSPP. There are clear rules that regulate the maximum length of time during which an expert group can advise the commission, “which in this case means there will be no extension after the two mandates (12 months per mandate).”

OSPP final report

The final report provides a brief overview of the four-year work (two mandates) of the platform. It draws up recommendations for the Commission and analyses the status of implementation of open science practices. It also describes progress made and barriers imposed on Open Science implementation by each different stakeholder community1 over the past two years.

The report identifies three ambitions with high disparities between stakeholders (research integrity, skills&education, citizen science), which suggests a need for further discussion to develop common views on the challenges. Another urgent issue is the role of open science in public-private partnerships and “the dilemma faced by business and industry in adopting Open Science practices and principles whilst fulfilling requirements for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and commercial practices”. Here, the OSPP recognises that it is difficult to address the challenges faced by the business and industry community who are not represented among the OSPP stakeholders.

In conclusion, the OSPP experts call upon the EU Member States and all relevant actors in the private and public sectors to undertake broader systemic efforts and coordinate their strategies.

The report encourages them to move beyond Open Science to co-create a “research system based on shared knowledge by 2030”, identifying five priorities:

  1. An academic career structure that fosters outputs, practices and behaviours to maximise contributions to a shared research knowledge system.  
  2. A research system that is reliable, transparent and trustworthy.
  3. A research system that enables innovation.
  4. A research culture that facilitates diversity and equity of opportunity.
  5. A research system that is built on evidence- based policy and practice.

1 In this report, stakeholders are divided into the following groups: Universities & Research Organizations, Scientific Societies and Academies, Research Funding Organizations, Policy-Making Organizations, Citizen Science Organizations, Publishers, Open Science Platforms and Intermediaries, Research Libraries, Researchers.

Methodology:

The report does not strive to provide consensus view, but rather shows stakeholders’ opinions along the eight identified core areas (“ambitions”) identified by the EU Commission: 1) rewards and incentives, 2) indicators & next-generation metrics, 3) future of scholarly communications, 3) European Open Science Cloud (EOSC), 5) FAIR data, 6) research integrity, 7) skills &  education, 8) citizen science.

Each stakeholder community evaluated the level of progress for each ambition according to 5 categories (discussion, planning, implementation, adoption and common practice). For each ambition, 2 to 4 recommendations were made.

image: Photo by Guillaume Périgois on Unsplash

The post Open Science Policy Platform: final report appeared first on openscience.eu.

Baltimore’s community lab puts the scientific method in the people’s hands – The Washington Post

“Huon de Kermadec, originally from France, has been collaborating with a group of other “biohackers” for about two years to develop an alternative. The Open Insulin Project springs from the idea that people with diabetes should have access to affordable treatment methods outside the traditional pharmacologic brands, which can cost hundreds of dollars per vial.

If successful, the project could enable diabetics to set up their own low-cost insulin production systems at home.

A 30-something biochemist with a doctorate, Huon de Kermadec started working on open-source insulin in Oakland, Calif. But when his wife accepted a job at Johns Hopkins University, Huon de Kermadec relocated his workspace to the Baltimore Under Ground Science Space (BUGSS), a community lab designed with such purposes in mind.

BUGSS operates under the ethos that people other than university faculty members and students should have access to research lab space. Do-it-yourself biologists, hobbyists, and high school and home-schooled students have made BUGSS their official headquarters and classroom as they pursue advanced projects without much red tape involved….”

What is Open Science: even a 12-year old child can participate in creation of a scientific article – YouTube

“Our first introduction video is dedicated to the problem of peer review process in scientific communication. In the view of recent scandals with articles retraction from prestigious journals such as hydroxychloroquine study from the Lancet journal, we must overview the need of peer review in the current scholarly publishing system. What is a peer review and why does it prevent our scientific progress and citizens participation in it? What is Open science and Open peer review? And why do we need to transform our science to be open?

To answer these questions, we invited to the interview Matheus Pereira Lobo, Brazilian physicist and mathematician, professor at the Federal University of Tocantins, co-editor of the Open Journal of Mathematics and Physics. He shares his thoughts about peer review process and tells about the alternative, his Open Journal of Mathematics and Physics which welcomes collaboration not only with his colleagues but with the broad public.”

iNaturalist – SciStarter

“iNaturalist is a place where you can record what you see in nature, meet other nature lovers, and learn about the natural world. It is also a crowdsourced species identification system and an organism occurrence recording tool. You can use it to record your own observations, get help with identifications, collaborate with others to collect this kind of information for a common purpose, or access the observational data collected by iNaturalist users.

From hikers to hunters, birders to beach-combers, the world is filled with naturalists, and many of us record what we find. What if all those observations could be shared online? You might discover someone who finds beautiful wildflowers at your favorite birding spot, or learn about the birds you see on the way to work. If enough people recorded their observations, it would be like a living record of life on Earth that scientists and land managers could use to monitor changes in biodiversity, and that anyone could use to learn more about nature.

That’s the vision behind iNaturalist.org. So if you like recording your findings from the outdoors, or if you just like learning about life, join us!”